I heard Mary Starrett on Lars Larson's radio show yesterday. She couldn't seem to answer the question Lars posed as to what made her positions any different than Saxton's. She could only come up with the one abortion issue. She is really shooting herself in the foot by dwelling on that one issue so much. I doubt she will get much support from anyone other than the ORTL crowd.

While I am happy to see Mary's impact on the governor's race as an offset to Ben Westlund, I wonder if she will bring out more right wingers who might otherwise not vote. The real question is will her presence hurt Democratic candidates for the legislature.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic under God, rather than a democracy. Our Republic is a nation governed by a Constitution that is rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are Constitutionally elected by the citizens.
In a Republic governed by Constitutional law rooted in Biblical law, all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules. We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:
That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to Life, Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of the individual's personal interest;

"By thier creator", is the correct quote. Meaning whatever you think created you, endowded you with those rights. Not the bible. There is not one mention of God in the Constitution, and only once in the Declaration of Independence, and that is "Nature's God".

*Because our liberties are not gifts handed out by government; they're granted by God and they're safeguarded by people who keep a very close eye on those who they have elected.
*It's about American sovereignty. We must protect our borders from the invasion that we have allowed. We have used our limited resources against our will to feed, to clothe, to educate, to medicate, to incarcerate, and to placate foreigners who have come here unlawfully.
*It's interesting to note that this is an argument which is being advanced by the Republican Party when the Republicans started out as a third party. And if winning is all that matters, remember Hitler won, but he wasn't right.

And here's one for our friends at the Bus Project:

*Guess what, you're still on the wrong bus, and it's going in the wrong direction. It's time to get off the bus, my friends.

Liberties coming from God, not the Constitution (did anyone choke on their coffee over the irony of that one?); placating foreigners; Hitler rhetoric--oh my, this is gonna be interesting!

As I suspected, Starrett is embracing Christian Nationalism, not rejecting it. For those interested, I recommend Michelle Goldberg's book, "Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism." Goldberg is a senior writer at the online mag Salon.

See if you don't agree the objectives of Christian Nationalism are seditious.

Oregon is on very dangerous ground here. We haven't had the fringe running in the mainstream for a very long time. But Starrett's media expose give her a legitimacy most fringe candidates cannot buy.

This election may be a rerun of 1990 when Al Mobley pulled about 13 percent of the vote away from both Dave Frohenmayer and Barbara Roberta. Roberts won with a pluraity -- 46 percent of the vote and the Legislature's Republicans never let her forget it. It paralysed the state and prevented an effective reponse to Don McIntire's budgetbusting Ballot measure 5. The state has never recovered.

Oregon may remain mired in the politics of paralysis and in the state's currently perilous fiscal condition, that may well have tragic consequences.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (source: copied directly from a transcript at the National Archives).

Some folks will tell you that the Declaration was “just a piece of paper”, and that it has no binding basis for our society. That is incorrect. It is common for the Judiciary to go back to the founder’s original paperwork to craft certain thorny court decisions. (reference: Miller v. US).

The Constitution doesn't address the issue of where the liberties come from, but rather grants the government certain rights in behalf of the people. In other words, the constitution doesn’t tell the people what we can and cannot do, instead it tells the government what it can and cannot do.

The Bill of Rights further enumerates some of those rights that folks were specifically worried would be trampled by a government.

The problem I have with Mary is that I think is blending a dangerous cocktail of theology and political expediency when it comes to governance. I don’t object to acknowledging the roots of an idea but I am very leery of tossing in 200 years of theological nuttery into our government.

OTOH, perhaps we would be better off just knuckling under a theocracy, instead of the insidious chip, chip, chipping away at our rights under the current neo-cons. Perhaps giving in to the American Taliban would yield better results than the constant fight against people who are religious only when it suits them or when they need votes. At least we KNOW what the Taliban stands for.

AP reports nearly 2,000 innocent Iraqis died last month, including starving babies, pregnant women on their way to the hospital and old, tired men in wheelchairs, so ALLAH is running things these days, folks, get real.

I take issue with the earlier statement the "state has never really recovered from the effects of Measure 5". We now have higher income taxes, property taxes have risen back to nearly the same rate as before Measure 5 and there is a state "fee" for everything under the sun. Vehicle license fees are way up and the state receives more than ever from fuel taxes.

I take issue with the earlier statement the "state has never really recovered from the effects of Measure 5". We now have higher income taxes, property taxes have risen back to nearly the same rate as before Measure 5 and there is a state "fee" for everything under the sun. Vehicle license fees are way up and the state receives more than ever from fuel taxes.

Ben, someone needs to sit down with you and explain the facts of life.

Income tax rates are the same or lower that they were in 1990 and Oregon’s Ship of State has many more discount passengers because the Republican controlled Legislature has paid off their campaign contributors with tax cuts, breaks and exemptions. The income tax take is higher than it was in 1990 because the economy is larger and better than it was in 1990.

Property taxes may be back to nearly the same rate they were before Measure 5 but the money goes to cities and counties. It no longer goes to schools. The only way they could have returned to previous levels is if your local voters approved the increases. Measure 5 gave the biggest tax reductions to business property at the expense of residential property taxpayers. As I said at the time, “Measure 5 was a shift, not a gift. Businesses were the “shiftor,” Ben Dover was one of the “shiftees.”

Nor does ben acknowledge how much of the state’s income tax revenues were “returned to taxpayers” in the form of nonexistent “kicker surpluses.” The Republicans balanced the state budget by borrowing billions again future income tax revenues. Republican who objected to this shell game, faced well-financed primary opponents -- Reps. Lane Shetterly, Lynn Lundquist and Sen. Ben Westlund can tell you all about how that game works.

And yet, you still whine for more money.

I ma not whining for more money. I am demanding enough money to pay the state’s bills without borrowing. It’s not complicated.

That's why fiscal conservatives will win state elections this fall.

“Borrow and spend” conservatives are not fiscal conservatives, Ben Dover. You are confused. Fiscal conservatives are people like me who expect the state to raise and keep enough money to pay the bills for initiatives approved by the voters -- Like Measure 5 and Measure 11. I suspect you voted for both, Ben. Now pay your bills and stop shifting them to the next generation.

As far as I know, Starrett is not a native Oregonian. That in itself should tell you not to vote for her at all.
Do you really think there should be some sort of lifelong residency litmus test to serve as governor? Do the other candidates qualify (I honestly don't know). Or how about to vote? How many on this board have slept on Oregon soil every night of their lives? I'm afraid I find that kind of nativism a bit nauseating.

Now having to live in the state for ten years before running for guv, I might be able to get on board with...

Measure 5 was concocted by people who were not Oregon bred and born and look what has happened - it has screwed the State.

The same with our initiative system. It has become a shambles under those people who have come as adults from other states to abuse the system.

As a native Oregonian, I am sickened by those who come from other states to either 'teach Oregonians a lesson' or 'reform the Oregon people'. Only people who are born and bred here in the State of Oregon know whats best for the State. I have had enough of the out of staters cramming their nonsense policies down the collective native Oregonians throat.

Governor Kulongoski, much as I like him, was bored and raised in an orphanage in Missouri. 60% or so of Oregonians were born elsewhere. I don't think this is an appropriate measure of anything, really.

Even as a native-born Oregonian I find the "Oregon Native" litmus test for the governorship ridiculous. By that standard, only Ron Saxton meets the requirement. Maybe this is Eric's ham-handed way of narrowing his own choice for the November election, but it is a fool's errand for the rest of the thinking populace.

Wow, Eric. Those are quite the accusations to hurl at those of us who have chosen to move to Oregon because we love it here. I am sure that there are native and non-native Oregonians on all sides of all issues. This logic that non-native Oregonians are here just to change Oregon and do not know what is best for the state are off-base.

I come from the worst place of all - Northern California --- and with values like a belief in public education, a moral responsiblity to take care of the earth and those less fortunate (with limits, of course), a desire to see fair taxation and economic policies, and a code of conduct that calls for civic engagement and volunteerism.

Pretty scary stuff, I know. Y'all better take away my right to run for office before things get out of hand. Better not let me sign petitions or vote, either.

I may have come from out of state, and I may even to some extent resent some of my fellow relocators, but I intend to raise my kids here and I intend to live here until I die. Shockingly, I want what is best for Oregonians and best for the state, not what is best for me.

Senility? She's 51. She's held these beliefs for at least a dozen years. You think she became senile in her 30's? She's not senile, she's just poisonous--and probably has been her whole adult life no matter how cute and harmless she looked on TV.

I believe it was not AM Northwest but "2 at 4", a 4 PM chat show on KATU that she co-hosted with Paul Linnman. Maybe she briefly had a seat on AM Northwest, but the true presiders of that program were Margie Boule and Jim Bosley.

Eric is brilliant, good to know Oregon is not the USA. I guess Oregon has none of the problems that plague the rest of the United States?
As for Mary Starrett, it is about time! Oregon and the rest of the United States need more non lawyers , doctors, and other upper financial class people to REALLY represent US.
Mary Starrett would listen a far sight better than Larry Campbell of the Republican friendly lobby ,that deals out large cash sums to willing politicians? Mary Starrett will listen to OUR concerns better than special interest groups funding their own wants and needs?!ANYONE other than the stuffed political suits ...will serve Oregon better.

BOHICA, if the founding fathers thought the word of the bible was so sacred, why did Jefferson re-write it? I'm really tired of people taking bits and pieces out of context. They were Deists, by and large. Deists don't believe in active, divine intervention, so they wouldn't believe in connecting every social issue to some biblical phrase. You should check out Jefferson's book, "The Gospel According to Jesus". The premise is that Jesus couldn't have said most of that stuff, so he included only what he thought was real. It's a very thin book.

They also held slaves, thought that women lacked the intellectual and physical characteristics to lead, believed that the entire universe consisted of our galaxy and practiced various forms of hocus pocus from alchemy to astrology. Why is what they did with the constitution an unalterable brilliance? They got a lot wrong; why would it have been different? They were people of their time, not some divine instrument of the State of God.

A native oregonian? What, like it's a compliment to be one of those? Don't get me wrong, I was born and raised here, out of Leaburg and Pleasant Hill. But what makes a native Oregonian so different than a Washingtonian or a Californian? There are plenty of stupid people to go around in every state of every nation in the world. There are obviously more of them in California, yes, but if Oregon had 5 or 6 major cities , I guarantee the numbers would be just as great. I would like to think Oregon breeds a smarter people than other states because I'm from here. But sadly, I have been to too many places like Willamina (very high rate of inbreeding), Portland (another one way street and this bicyclist is in my lane!)Ashland (pump the gas, quick so we can get out of here!), Amity and Lafayette (Dukes of Hazzard
crossed with crack houses), to know better.

Oregon has been drug down to the murky depths of depression and confusion thanks to our "professional" politicians over the years. If all the state of Oregon were to scorn my existence and judge me a castaway native, I would still vote for Mary Starrett. Even if Ron Saxton's goons (most of home were registered democrats at one time, and one even worked for John Kerry) held me down and performed Chinese nipple torture on me, I would still vote for Mary Starrett. Why? Because she's like me, that's why. And she is just like you too. She has the same concerns and viewpoints you do; she's not some cookie cutter political pro. I always hear people say, "I want a governor that knows what he's doing." I for one, DON'T want a politician who "knows what they're doing." Those are the ones that know all the crooked loopholes. Those are the ones that don't give a damn about your voice or what you want. They only care about their own agendas and what they think will work best. I don't WANT a leader...that's what the president is for. I want someone who will hear my conservative voice and who won't fold when the time comes to stand up for what he/she believes in; I want an example of what elected officials are supposed to be. I'm tired of sell-outs and phoney promises. I'm tired of "the game"-giving a little to take a little-and those professional politicians trying to make me believe that that is called diplomacy; i'm tired of egotistical jack a**es like Kulongoski, Mannix, Kitzhaber, Saxton, Goldschmidt, and yes, even though he is right much of the time, Lars Larson (who cares nothing about the issue unless it affects his own wallet. Nothing wrong with that, I like all I can get in mine,too; but he's still spineless on issues of ethics). I am voting for Mary Starrett because her words ring true with my beliefs and code of ethics. You other "conservatives" want to keep voting for the lesser evil, go right ahead. I am weary.

To Republicans in Congress and in state capitals across the country: It's time to refuse the NRA's support and their money. And donations received in the past should be donated to organizations supporting the survivors of gun violence.